The Authentic Cypherpunks: A Call to Action

I am experiencing a growing sense of unease in the crypto space. The industry, which emerged as a response to the 2008 financial crisis with the release of the Bitcoin whitepaper, has always had a rebellious spirit. Bitcoin was not just a technological innovation, but a political statement, a call to challenge the status quo. As someone who has worked in crypto for years, I should be celebrating the industry's progress. Today, decentralized technologies are no longer on the fringes, with fintechs adopting stablecoins, Bitcoin ETFs trading on traditional exchanges, and the average person familiar with blockchain. However, despite this surface-level acceptance, I feel that the essence of crypto - the cypherpunk values that drove its creation - is being watered down, co-opted, and sometimes directly betrayed. The core belief of the cypherpunk movement is that technology should be used to redistribute power, away from governments and corporations, and towards individuals. Peer-to-peer networks, end-to-end encryption, and censorship-resistant platforms are not just buzzwords, but commitments to creating a better society. The acquisition of crypto infrastructure startups by companies like Stripe may be seen as a positive development, but it does not validate the crypto industry's principles. The listing of Circle on the stock exchange is a corporate milestone, not a validation of crypto's values. A Bitcoin ETF may bring liquidity, but it does not bring ideological alignment. These fintech brands are not leading a movement; they are reacting to it. They are trying to keep pace with the crypto-native companies that are rapidly making their legacy models obsolete. We must not confuse acquisition with validation. Just because established companies are now interested in the tools we have built does not mean they understand, respect, or intend to preserve the reasons those tools exist. Crypto was not meant to be a tool for the state; it was meant to be a counterweight. The recent increase in political engagement and clearer regulatory frameworks may seem like progress, but it is understandable that many of us have lost sight of our goals. A glaring example of this is Coinbase's sponsorship of a military parade affiliated with President Trump. This is not a partisan critique, but a principled one. Coinbase's mission statement emphasizes that political causes are a distraction from its mission, yet the company has repeatedly aligned itself with political events. CEO Brian Armstrong's recent recruitment of former government employees is a poignant example: 'If you are looking for your next mission after serving your country, consider helping create a more efficient financial system for the world at Coinbase.' This framing - tying Coinbase's mission to the state - epitomizes the creeping fusion between crypto's stewards and the power structures we were meant to counterbalance. Yes, Coinbase is a publicly-traded company, and it operates in a jurisdiction governed by laws and politics. However, being compliant does not mean being co-opted. Sponsoring political events, aligning with political figures, and turning a profit from proximity to power undermines the ethical foundation of decentralized technology. And Coinbase is not alone. Crypto-funded super PACs are pouring money into elections at every level. Ripple is now a lobbying juggernaut in D.C. We are still grappling with the staggering corruption that was FTX, where political donations and influence-peddling were tools of manipulation, not participation. This is not a slippery slope; we are already sliding. Cypherpunkism is more than an aesthetic or ideology; it is a commitment to building systems that make centralized power obsolete, not tolerated or negotiated with, but irrelevant. It is about building tools that empower individuals, preserve privacy, and promote a more open and resilient society. Crypto founders, investors, and institutions need to revisit these roots. Blockchain's purpose is not to replicate traditional systems with shinier branding at politicized military gatherings, but to fundamentally alter how those systems work. To create a future where financial freedom, privacy, and open access are not privileges, but defaults. Yes, we must engage with regulators and work within legal frameworks, but that is a far cry from becoming their cheerleaders. There is a difference between navigating the system and being consumed by it. There is a difference between playing the game and forgetting why you joined it in the first place. We owe it to the movement - and to ourselves - to remember why crypto exists. Not to appease governments, but to hold them accountable. Not to win political favor, but to render such favor unnecessary. Not to build brands, but to build freedom. The real cypherpunks are still out there, but it is time we make our voices heard again.